The thing is that when you've seen plenty, you can just smell the real ones a mile off. I won't mention my thoughts of the RCEME armour connection....................
Printable View
The thing is that when you've seen plenty, you can just smell the real ones a mile off. I won't mention my thoughts of the RCEME armour connection....................
Something of note from the second picture you show Ridolpho is that the mark under the front pad looks to me like a Maltby FTR - not that common in my area of the world.
Amatikulu: Yes, that is what it appears to be. There is an old thread that discusses this mark beyond which I know nothing (as Sgt. Schultz would say). I am still curious about the barrel markings- in light of this Maltby FTR could they be related? Also, as a final note, the seller of this rifle, when presented with the evidence relating to its origins, has agreed to take it back.
Ridolpho
Good for you Ridolpho, it doesnt always end with a happy ending, at least next time you will be armed with more info etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridolpho
I think the scope always takes the shine off everything else, remove this and you can see the detail.
Its similar to a recent thead regarding a bayonet that was thought to be a 1907 Quillion, it was a Japanese Arisaka bayonet, Roger pointed out and I do the same myself, when you see a quillion in among a table of bayonets it does stand out from the rest, the first thought is a 1907, that kid at christmas feeling lasts for seconds until you see the pommel......
I feel its the same seeing a No32 scope on a No4.....
A bit off the direct subject but I would like to comment on the very civil & thoughful dilaouge contained in this post. The detailed back and forth on what could have been a very contentious issue will prove helpful to novices like myself if we are every fortunate enough to find ourselves standing in front of the elusive T.